The Equality of the Dung Heap
An essential part of our heritage is becoming Negroized. Tin-Tin in Africa is banned from sale in the U.S., and Doctor Dolittle is rewritten to appease blacks. Howard Pyle’s fairy tales are rewritten with blacks rather than white characters, the musical version of Oliver Twist has a black Oliver, A Christmas Carol gets an all-black cast, Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour Lost has interracial couples, and the list goes on. I’m sure readers could supply hundreds more examples.
It doesn’t take a heroic, knightly act of superhuman courage to oppose such assaults on the European cultural heritage. If white people would just refuse to buy new Negroized versions of older classic works and refuse to buy tickets to Negroized movies of Doctor Dolittle, Oliver Twist, and Love’s Labour Lost, they could force the white capitalists who produce such mongrelized works of art to cease and desist. But that would require a racial solidarity that whites don’t possess.
And I should add that the black productions of white works would not be nearly so offensive if they made some attempt to preserve the spirit of the old works, but they don’t. The Negroized versions become new jazzy, be-bop works that insult the original ones.
I remember eating a souvlaki in a Greek restaurant a few years back. It was the Christmas season, and the proprietor of the restaurant, an older Greek fellow, had the radio tuned to a station playing Christmas carols. After a wonderful rendition of “Silent Night” finished playing, a Negroized, be-bop version of “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” came on the radio. The Greek proprietor listened in disbelief for a minute and then turned it off.
“Imagine,” he said, “Taking a wonderful song like that and destroying it. It shouldn’t be permitted.”
And of course the proprietor of the restaurant was correct. Such things shouldn’t be permitted. But the complete Negroization of white culture has been mandated. The “separate but equal” accommodation, articulated in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), was the South’s way of dealing with the fact that an inferior capitalist society had conquered their culturally superior one and had mandated the infusion of Negroes into their society. By providing separate schools, restaurants, swimming pools, and so on, and calling them separate but equal, Southerners hoped to stave off the tragedy of racial integration.
But the liberals, north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line, were not buying “separate but equal.” Separate is inherently unequal, the liberals reasoned, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). And although it is morally wrong to mandate integration, the liberals were right in saying that separate is inherently unequal. Any culture of value is unequal to other cultures. Nineteenth-century European culture is superior to twentieth-century European culture, the Southern culture of the 19th century was superior to the Northern culture, European culture is superior to African culture, and so on.
There can only be an equality in barbarism, because there is no value in barbarism. No one can be higher, in the cultural sense, than someone else in a barbaric culture that has no concept of ‘the higher.’ In barbarism there are people in power, of course, but they are all equal in the cultural sense. Everyone is equal: they are barbaric. And that is the moral evil of integration. The infusion of barbarism into a civilized society does not elevate the barbarian, it brings down the civilized people.
Twenty-five years ago I first saw a white person listening to Negro rap music. He was retarded. Now, I see white youths listening to Negro rap music on a regular basis; this is called equality.
At its onset, integration was presented by the liberals as the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised. What Christian could object to that? The most courteous, respectful (at least outwardly) Negroes were pushed forward to show the reasonableness of integration and the unreasonableness of segregation. But once the barrier of segregation is broken, a radical change takes place. Joe Louis evolves into Muhammed Ali, and Jackie Robinson becomes Darryl Strawberry. Our whole concept of sports, leisure, and religion has been radically altered as a result of the integration of Negroes into society.
Occasionally some liberal, now a neoconservative, like Charlton Heston, will say, “Gee, when I held hands with Martin Luther King, Jr., I didn’t think I was assenting to the complete dismantling of civilization.” But that is exactly what Mr. Heston, who at least had the courage to oppose that dismantlement, was consenting to. Integration is death for civilizations with value. Indeed, everything of value in those civilizations will be destroyed.
Our leaders tell us that we must adjust. We must learn to love the dung heap. No, that is something I will not do. I stand with Alexander Smollet, who, when enjoined to surrender to the seemingly invincible barbarians, said:
“Now you’ll hear me. If you’ll come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t, my name is Alexander Smollet, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”
It doesn’t take a heroic, knightly act of superhuman courage to oppose such assaults on the European cultural heritage. If white people would just refuse to buy new Negroized versions of older classic works and refuse to buy tickets to Negroized movies of Doctor Dolittle, Oliver Twist, and Love’s Labour Lost, they could force the white capitalists who produce such mongrelized works of art to cease and desist. But that would require a racial solidarity that whites don’t possess.
And I should add that the black productions of white works would not be nearly so offensive if they made some attempt to preserve the spirit of the old works, but they don’t. The Negroized versions become new jazzy, be-bop works that insult the original ones.
I remember eating a souvlaki in a Greek restaurant a few years back. It was the Christmas season, and the proprietor of the restaurant, an older Greek fellow, had the radio tuned to a station playing Christmas carols. After a wonderful rendition of “Silent Night” finished playing, a Negroized, be-bop version of “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” came on the radio. The Greek proprietor listened in disbelief for a minute and then turned it off.
“Imagine,” he said, “Taking a wonderful song like that and destroying it. It shouldn’t be permitted.”
And of course the proprietor of the restaurant was correct. Such things shouldn’t be permitted. But the complete Negroization of white culture has been mandated. The “separate but equal” accommodation, articulated in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), was the South’s way of dealing with the fact that an inferior capitalist society had conquered their culturally superior one and had mandated the infusion of Negroes into their society. By providing separate schools, restaurants, swimming pools, and so on, and calling them separate but equal, Southerners hoped to stave off the tragedy of racial integration.
But the liberals, north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line, were not buying “separate but equal.” Separate is inherently unequal, the liberals reasoned, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). And although it is morally wrong to mandate integration, the liberals were right in saying that separate is inherently unequal. Any culture of value is unequal to other cultures. Nineteenth-century European culture is superior to twentieth-century European culture, the Southern culture of the 19th century was superior to the Northern culture, European culture is superior to African culture, and so on.
There can only be an equality in barbarism, because there is no value in barbarism. No one can be higher, in the cultural sense, than someone else in a barbaric culture that has no concept of ‘the higher.’ In barbarism there are people in power, of course, but they are all equal in the cultural sense. Everyone is equal: they are barbaric. And that is the moral evil of integration. The infusion of barbarism into a civilized society does not elevate the barbarian, it brings down the civilized people.
Twenty-five years ago I first saw a white person listening to Negro rap music. He was retarded. Now, I see white youths listening to Negro rap music on a regular basis; this is called equality.
At its onset, integration was presented by the liberals as the enfranchisement of the disenfranchised. What Christian could object to that? The most courteous, respectful (at least outwardly) Negroes were pushed forward to show the reasonableness of integration and the unreasonableness of segregation. But once the barrier of segregation is broken, a radical change takes place. Joe Louis evolves into Muhammed Ali, and Jackie Robinson becomes Darryl Strawberry. Our whole concept of sports, leisure, and religion has been radically altered as a result of the integration of Negroes into society.
Occasionally some liberal, now a neoconservative, like Charlton Heston, will say, “Gee, when I held hands with Martin Luther King, Jr., I didn’t think I was assenting to the complete dismantling of civilization.” But that is exactly what Mr. Heston, who at least had the courage to oppose that dismantlement, was consenting to. Integration is death for civilizations with value. Indeed, everything of value in those civilizations will be destroyed.
Our leaders tell us that we must adjust. We must learn to love the dung heap. No, that is something I will not do. I stand with Alexander Smollet, who, when enjoined to surrender to the seemingly invincible barbarians, said:
“Now you’ll hear me. If you’ll come up one by one, unarmed, I’ll engage to clap you all in irons, and take you home to a fair trial in England. If you won’t, my name is Alexander Smollet, I’ve flown my sovereign’s colours, and I’ll see you all to Davy Jones.”
Labels: Negroization of white culture
posted by CWNY | 10:36 AM
<< Home